Why Stephen Hawking is not right or the outlook for AI

While Stephen Hawking once again warns us about the danger of creating an AI, let's think about the benefits he can bring to all of humanity. After all, people have always been afraid of something new, the older you are - the more conservative you become. It is a fact. The situation is reminiscent of constantly emerging movies with evil aliens who want to enslave humanity. But there are several pitfalls. Firstly, I doubt very much that the conditions on Earth are so suitable for the life of these very green men. I give 99.9% that the earth's atmosphere will be poisonous for them, the level of attraction is either too small or too high, the same applies to atmospheric pressure. The situation is drawn is not the most rosy - the invasion of a notoriously very unfriendly environment with an attempt to enslave local Neanderthals with thermonuclear warheads for unknown purposes. The logic of this action remains a big question. Why such a highly developed civilization capable of traveling between planetary systems such remote, unremarkable planets like ours? After all, the composition of our planet is no different from the composition of other celestial bodies. And there are no vicious and vindictive two-eyed creatures armed with the most diverse (albeit, perhaps useless against the "enslavers") weapons on asteroids. Why fly a few light years to destroy or enslave a young and unremarkable race? Isn't it easier to put together an army of processing robots, and send them to crush asteroids in search of minerals? Mankind has not yet cured a disease called "A sense of its own imaginary significance." Nobody needs us in space, provided that there is someone.



The same situation with artificial intelligence. What does a person need for existence? To around the stars in the so-called. The "green zone" appeared a planet, life began there, managed to survive, and creatures appeared that could be eaten. It's hard. What does a car need? Electricity and all. Artificial intelligence, if it is created in the image of a human or in general, driven by logical actions will not be so easy to destroy people. What are the chances of success in a deliberately hostile environment? And why destroy again the whole race, which, moreover, created you. Yes, children do not always express gratitude to their parents, they do not always agree with them and, some, far surpass their fathers and mothers in intellectual, physical and, perhaps, even political opportunities. But they do not go to kill their "creators" even though they received a belt in childhood. Although, of course, there are such unique people, but their overwhelming minority. True, the parents themselves may be to blame no less. After all, no one will just kill anyone. Nuclear weapons can also destroy us, and this danger, especially in light of recent events, is much more likely.
')


The machine is not limited in habitat, it does not need to have such an atmosphere, temperature, etc. The machine can live in space, feeding on solar, nuclear or thermonuclear energy, processing the small bodies of the solar system to create its own kind or for any other purposes. If you count the number logically, what are the chances of survival? When trying to destroy a whole, say, 8 billionth species, or in exchange for assistance in technological progress, ask for several missiles (and now about 80 pieces are launched into orbit), which will have all the necessary equipment for autonomous existence in space? A couple of fusion reactors, drilling rigs, etc.



In human history, you remember, more developed nations have always conquered the more backward ones. But the machine does not need to do this, because an unlimited number of resources exist in other places besides the Earth, and they do not need spacesuits or complex life support systems. And after all, AI will not be immediately on a level with human. It will gradually develop and we will be able to control its evolution, not allowing it to overstep any particular feature. The ability to think creatively, for example.

But we create a friendly-tuned car with capabilities that are many times superior to ours, what do we get? I think that this will be a turning point in the history of our species, because we can get answers to questions that are not fundamentally solvable for the human brain. Remember the situation before. To comprehend the secrets of our world, it did not require fundamentally great efforts a few centuries ago. But then it became harder and harder. Already there are no individual geniuses pulling the whole of humanity. Science now rests on the shoulders of huge research institutes and their cooperations, with super sophisticated equipment, like a collider. We are getting closer and closer to the “barrier” in understanding the world, which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to overcome. To cross this threshold we can be helped by machines for which this can be trivially simple, because their capabilities will be limited only by the amount of computing resources. Answers to all previously unsolved mathematical, physical, cosmological and other problems can be obtained in a very short period of time. In a few years we will be able to take a step further than in all previous millennia. You can not be afraid and prohibit something new, even if it scares you. Otherwise, we risk never knowing the huge number of answers to the riddles of our world. Man and car will be able to live in symbiosis.

Will we live in fear of destruction? Or dare to reach a fundamentally new level? Time will tell.